Referendums: Logical changes/additions

[Eirikr]

Before I create a formal feature request, I was wondering if the following changes and additions have already been suggested and, if denied, why were they denied:

• Allowing characters to see referendums they create, even if they cannot vote on them. (Currently, my ruler is not also a lord, so he is unable to see a referendum he makes... or vote on it.)
• Allow characters to create referendums for specific message groups.
• Allow characters to make referendum results publicly (within realm) available.

There are others I could add, but any one of those would solve some things I see as issues with the current system. The general idea is to make referendums less limited. I feel like there's likely a reason these changes weren't made already, so I thought I'd ask instead of waiting for my request to be shot down. (Though, if I'm wrong, I'll go ahead and write up a full proposal.)

[Telrunya]

I would love to see the ability to do the same thing with automated Referenda with manual ones as well: An option, instead of selecting a character of the Realm, for Nobles to have to announce their candidacy (And being able to withdraw themselves from it).

[Eirikr]

I would love to see the ability to do the same thing with automated Referenda with manual ones as well: An option, instead of selecting a character of the Realm, for Nobles to have to announce their candidacy (And being able to withdraw themselves from it).

THANK YOU! I was trying to remember what else I'd wanted to add.

[Eirikr]

Any input on this?

[Indirik]

It's all good stuff.

[Eirikr]

It's all good stuff.

So I'll take that as there was no developmental reason to limit referendums as they are and I should submit a formal feature request?

[Indirik]

I think one possible objection to running referendums on groupps rather than the presefined everyone/lords/dukes may have been from a desire to not disenfranchise people who *should* be included. I.e. to prevent, or make it harder, a realm from forming their own group and then ignoring the lords who really should be included.

I'm not sure how valid or how much of a concern this is. But even so, I would definitely submit a formal feature request with all the details for consideration.

[Penchant]

I think one possible objection to running referendums on groupps rather than the presefined everyone/lords/dukes may have been from a desire to not disenfranchise people who *should* be included. I.e. to prevent, or make it harder, a realm from forming their own group and then ignoring the lords who really should be included.

I'm not sure how valid or how much of a concern this is. But even so, I would definitely submit a formal feature request with all the details for consideration.

Why should people be entitled to referendums?/Whats wrong with disenfranchising them?

[vonGenf]

Why should people be entitled to referendums?/Whats wrong with disenfranchising them?

People, in general, can be disenfranchised.

However the game-mechanic hierarchy should be the real hierarchy of the realm. The correct way to disenfranchise a Duke is to find a way to make him no longer a Duke, not to make a message group with all your friends and ignore the Duke.

[Anaris]

People, in general, can be disenfranchised.

However the game-mechanic hierarchy should be the real hierarchy of the realm. The correct way to disenfranchise a Duke is to find a way to make him no longer a Duke, not to make a message group with all your friends and ignore the Duke.

I don't know; it seems to me that if you can manage to successfully cut a Duke out of the political process, that's a sign of highly successful court intrigue.

It's certainly not something that the Titans or Magistrates should be frowning upon.

[vonGenf]

It's certainly not something that the Titans or Magistrates should be frowning upon.

No, of course! It can be done, but as you say it should be done through a political process.

I'm only saying that giving a new possibility to completely bypass the system would be bad.

As such, I think consultative referendums could be done for a guild or message only, but I understand if the Devs prefer the current system for this reason (which I think was Indirik's point).

I would be more strongly against giving that possibility for actual elections where the game mechanics enforces the result.

[Eirikr]

No, of course! It can be done, but as you say it should be done through a political process.

I'm only saying that giving a new possibility to completely bypass the system would be bad.

As such, I think consultative referendums could be done for a guild or message only, but I understand if the Devs prefer the current system for this reason (which I think was Indirik's point).

I would be more strongly against giving that possibility for actual elections where the game mechanics enforces the result.

Oh yes, we're only talking about the referendum tool, which has never (as far as I know) had any coded effect besides showing the result. It becomes your choice to act upon that result or not.

I agree that elections for ruler, etc, should not have the ability to be limited to message groups or whatnot.

[Penchant]

Oh yes, we're only talking about the referendum tool, which has never (as far as I know) had any coded effect besides showing the result. It becomes your choice to act upon that result or not.

I agree that elections for ruler, etc, should not have the ability to be limited to message groups or whatnot.

+1